Kill all men

Well, well, well. It seems the latest thing feminism is fighting about is the phrase “kill all men”.

So, before I launch into this defence, let me point out that nobody is actually planning to kill all men. Not even some men. It’s just a phrase, an expression of rage, a rejection of a system which is riddled with violence.

“Kill all men” is a shorthand war cry, much the same as “ACAB” or “tremble hetero swine” or “die cis scum”. It represents a structural critique, presented in a provocative fashion. While my focus here is on “kill all men”, and therefore in relation to sexist oppression specifically, these points are applicable for all oppressors and all victims of oppression who dare to feel angry.

Patriarchy harms men, it’s true, but it oppresses the fuck out of women, and there are few, if any men who are not complicit in this oppression. Most men are not rapists or abusers, but many are complicit in perpetuating this violence by spreading rape apologist myths, by failing to stand against violence against women and girls, and by simply not nailing their colours to the mast and acting as allies.

I remember once being at a reading group where we were discussing the SCUM Manifesto. It was a mixed group, and we had loads to chat about. If you haven’t read SCUM, I’d well recommend it, as while its conception of gender is kind of rooted in its time, there’s a very astute analysis of how patriarchy and capitalism interact to produce a system which oppresses women. There’s also some very clever satire of the thinking of the time, flipped and reversed on its head to present a biological argument as to why men are inferior. In fact, the whole thing just inverts this system in which violence against women and girls is endemic, and exaggerates the problem to its logical conclusion. It’s really a very good text, whether or not its author truly believed what she’d written.

Part of the power of SCUM is the effect it has on men. At my reading group, the men present were allies, and I remember vividly one saying “I don’t think she went far enough at the end, letting some of the men live and act as the Men’s Auxilliary”. All of the other men nodded along. They got that this idea is just fantasy, just a satire.

On the other hand, it’s pretty difficult to mention SCUM (or indeed just cry “kill all men”) without the misogynists crawling in, crying misandry.

And this is because misogynists completely fail to understand how power works. They miss the fact that in this society, violence against women and girls is rife, that it is an everyday occurrence which is seen to at best utterly unremarkable and at worst funny or aspirational. Saying “kill all men” and violence against women and girls are completely different. There is no serious threat of the women rising up and actually killing all men, all the while the hum of background noise of another women raped, murdered or beaten by a man. That this culture of violence is gendered, and the system is set up in favour of keeping things that way.

So is it any wonder that sometimes women are angry enough to express a wish to see their oppressors dead? And that this violent revenge fantasy remains just that–a revenge fantasy?

I suppose it is hardly surprising that utterances of killing all men draw such ire, even from feminists. Under patriarchy, violence is the domain of men. It is no coincidence that when women fight back, it is seen as disgusting: it allows the system to thrive. This is why more column inches are given to women who kill their partners who have abused them every day; this is why we see such sexualised depictions of women being violent in films, defanging the raw aggression; why patriarchy freaks the fuck out over Rihanna or Christina Aguilera singing about vengeance. And it’s why even merely uttering “kill all men” is seen as so shocking: we’ve internalised this sentiment, and the idea that women are not violent or angry. It is unthinkable that we can think violent thoughts.

So no, we’re not actually advocating killing all men, but what we need is for men to understand why we might. A secondary function of this powerful little phrase is to seek out allies. Some men simply cannot fathom that we might be this furious. And they cannot help us as allies, as we need.

And of course, all men are not deserving of death. In fact, most of them aren’t. I can think of a fair few I do wish painful, violent death on, although this remains but a fantasy. Patriarchy would destroy me were I to ever touch a hair on their head. Patriarchy already tries to punish me for merely expressing these thoughts, because they are unbecoming of a woman.

Remember, we are born and socialised into a culture of violence. Is it any wonder we may entertain violent fantasies against our oppressors at times?

Sorry if I’m missing something, but is it not perhaps conceivable that “utterances of killing all men draw such ire”, not because “Under patriarchy, violence is the domain of men”, but because, y’know, killing people is wrong?

Thing is, that analysis rests on the assumption that gender equality has already been achieved, which it hasn’t. It completely erases all of the gendered power structures at play, underpinning all of this.

Um, no, we don’t have to achieve gender equality before we’re allowed to oppose violence. Personally I feel that responding to the serious and undeniable issue of gender violence by saying “just kill all the men” implies that there is no other way to end the problem. It’s not that I think violence is the exclusive preserve of men. It’s that I despise violence as a response to something that needs to change. Isn’t that precisely the problem that’s being fought against? Men (some men, not all men, although as the article points out other men are complicit in allowing it) use violence to force a situation into what they want. How does it help for us to perpetuate the idea that that is acceptable?

Not at all. I never said that people are allowed to use violence against us, please don’t put words into my mouth. I simply don’t think that condemning something and then doing it yourself is going to result in progress.

Too bad that the constant jokes about women beating, rape, and dying aren’t taken with any ire. And when you do have any “ire” about it and dare say that killing/beating/raping is wrong, you’re told you’re too sensitive and you should get over it.

IF ONLY people actually reacted with ire because murder or rape was wrong. IF ONLY.

I take your point, although personally I can’t think of any situation I would likely to be in where anybody present could make such a joke without it attracting a great deal of ire. But I suppose that’s what I was trying to say – just as it’s neither completely true to say that people can freely make such jokes, nor completely untrue either, “violence belongs to teh menz!” as an explanation for a hostile reaction to “kill all men” is not the whole picture but it is not none of it either.

Except that violence against women (and trans people, especially trans women of colour) is not only laughed at frequently without ire, but that any “ire” brought up by women or trans people is usually met with more threats of violence.http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2005-11-22_72

People DO joke about harming women freely – shit, who are we kidding? Men HARM women frequently. They don’t even joke about it. They don’t have to. And they do it without consequence frequently. Maybe you can come back to me when 95% of rapists don’t walk away without ANY punishment and I’ll feel a little more inclined to believe that a retaliatory “kill all men” shouted in frustration is in any way comparable to the monotonous jokes/depiction of violence against women & trans people I see on a consistent basis that attract absolutely no fucking ire because having any ire about it gets you either MORE threats of violence or gets you told you don’t appreciate free speech/are too sensitive/etc. or any of the other myriad of linguistic rubbish people use to defend that type of bollocks these days.

And the key difference here? There’s actual structural oppression behind those jokes. Whereas women, trans* and intersex folk have LITTLE structural power behind “kill all men”. That’s the huge tidbit you’re missing here. There’s quite a large difference between retaliation based on years of structural violence and oppression and… you know, THE STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION WHICH CAUSED THE RETALIATION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If you’re going to paternalistically tell people how to react to their own oppression you can, at the very least, do the us the intellectual decency of not comparing that reaction directly to the oppression that reaction causes. It’s not only insulting but it’s pretty logically lazy.

I don’t disagree with any of your points there, except that listing them in response to my comment makes little sense. I did not “tell” anyone, paternalistically or otherwise, how to react to anything, let alone their own oppression, nor did I miss the “huge tidbit” about structural oppression, nor did I compare “kill all men” to anything, except inasmuch as I was saying that the truth of any situation is rarely one extreme nor the other.

You’re making a comparison at the beginning of this thread with the assertion that violence is contextually the same when applied to all circumstances. My point is that it isn’t. You asserting that saying “Kill all men” causes ire because it’s the killing and the violence people object to is not only completely ridiculous given the way our culture promotes violence in a variety of ways (films, military, police, etc.) but also because equating the reaction of oppressed individuals with the system that oppresses them is logically fallible. The truth of the situation is that you cannot compare these situations. They exist within completely different cultural contexts. So, the next time you try to assert that people don’t like “kill all men” because they have such a moral objection to killing, you might want to think about the situation just a tad bit more.

It’s often hilarious to me, just how badly the. privileged take very simple, obviously hyperbolic remarks. The patriarchy is often in default “kill all women” mode, white supremacy groups all POC into one lump, and cisstraight people seem to have no problem at all with thinking that LGBT people are a hivemind, but to generalise the oppressors? “WAH! NOT FAIR! HOW DARE U?”

They’re so insecure at the top of their wobbly jenga stacks of privilege that even threatening to nudge that pile sends them into cataclysmic fury. Poor things, it’s tough at the top

Introspection is their friend, but it just seems to hard for those drunk on privilege to engage in self-reflection.

Not even going to start on how distressed AB people get if *GASP* you use TAB/CAB instead of their apparently preferred “normal”. I was once dogpiled by a flurry of the cliched middle class/cisstraight/white/AB feminists for using TAB and CAB. Apparently the C implied a threat to harm them, and the T was allegedly the hope (of all us bitter cripples) that one day misfortune will strike ABs down and render them that most horrific of things, DISABLED!!

I think CAB more often means “Currently Able-Bodied”, which to be fair does sound a little bit like some kind of movie-stereotype Mafia-guy threat. “You’d better walk out of here… while you still can.” And apparently the “B” part of AB/CAB/TAB is discriminatory anyway, because not all disabilities are of the body.

Actually the ‘currently’ and ‘temporarily’ refer to the fact that disability is not a constant for everyone. Some people have relapses and remissions, some have disabling conditions that have not, as yet, had a considerable effects on them.

Also, it’s to distinguish between the able.bodied and those with invisible illnesses that make them appear able-bodied.

And frankly, I don’t give a f*ck if able-bodied people are offended by terms used to describe them. Cis people whine about being labelled, heterosexuals raised merry hell when the term was coined, neurotypicals bleat about that term too. The privileged think that only they should have the power to assign labels to groups of people. Of course they’ll take angsty umbrage at the oppressed daring to do the same.

People with mental illnesses are still disabled with physical effects. Cartesian dualism is outdated bollocks. The brain is part of the body, PWMI have invisible neurological disabilities just the same as someone with epilepsy or Chiari Malformation.

When my mental illness affects my body, it means I’m not AB. I’m not anyway, due to physical disabilities, but trust me, the mental illnesses are no less disabling than the physical ones.

If AB people can’t grasp any of this, if it makes them feel whiny or singled out, then tough. It doesn’t compare to the lifetime of abuse, suspicion, degradation and pain inflicted on PWD and PWMI every single day.

That goes for any majority group who feels hurt and annoyed because of statements like “men are bastards” or “white people suck” or “die cis scum”. If that’s the worst thing that’s happening to them, then they’re lucky.

Apologies if my comment put across the idea that a) cis, heterosexual, etc people shouldn’t be ‘labelled’ or if my ignorance over what your initials stood for was in any way undermining your input. I was just genuinely curious, and luckily, google actually answered what PWD and PWMI stood for!

But as I have already said in another post, I am personally against such statements such as ‘kill all men,’ and I am cis-female (therefore not got male privelege, but I recognise I AM priveleged in other ways).

Also, just wanted to add – my ignorance regarding the initials is in no wau equivalent of the bullshit ‘but you don’t LOOK sick’ ignorance. God no. I don’t have an ‘invisible’ illness/disability myself, but a lot of my friends DO.I really can’t stand the misconceptions such as telling a person with depression to ‘cheer up’ or an anorexic to ‘eat more, stop being an attention-seeker.’ Annoys me to hell. Screw ATOS.

First off, I am priveleged in many ways (White, cis, heterosexual, able, educated, etc) but NOT with my gender. I wouldn’t want to cry ‘kill all men’ NOT because I’m male (I’m a sefl-identifying woman) but because… well, I’m not the killing type (*starts humming the Amanda Palmer song ^_^*) and I don’t think it serves the purpose. I’m not one to care about being ‘ladylike,’ so that’s not the reason either.

Anger towards oppressors? GOD YES, I can understand. But the chant is not ‘kill all oppressors’ or even referring to ONE oppressor (see the song links), but ‘kill all men.’ Yes it’s satire, and it grabs attention… but it’s not satire that I agree with, and it’s not really good attention either.

I don’t think anyone truly thinks that the chanters want to take it literally, but do you know the stereotype that all feminists are man-haters? The chant ain’t helping this one little bit! And completely disregards male allies.

But stavvers, you have some women who also think of feminists as man-haters, and refuse to label themselves as feminists because of this. Is this because of the patriarchy and an effect of oppressors knocking us down? YES! But it’s not just men who think this.

You also have women who think other women who do anything feminine are betraying feminism. You also have women who think that trans acceptance within feminism is supposedly letting men into women’s spaces. At what point are we going to alter our own expressions, feelings, and beliefs to others?

What’s the point in supporting anger towards oppressive structures and individuals if you don’t also support the expression of that anger? Oh it’s okay to hate patriarchy, just as long as we don’t say it!

Look, I think that there are understandable critiques of “kill all men” and “misandry” such as the fact that it can often reinforce a gender binary OR that when white women talk about “kill all men” they need to recognise that they still have some structural power over men of colour that HAS resulted in the vicious deaths of men at the hands of white supremacy. And I’m willing to listen and engage in those critiques. Because those make actual sense.

But critiques that come off as “This is bad PR” don’t make sense. Good PR does not overthrow oppressive structures or make people think. Good PR is just that. Good PR.

It seems to me that “Good PR does not overthrow oppressive structures or make people think” is the complete opposite of the truth. Surely, peoples’ perceptions are absolutely key to changing the world?

You cannot appeal to the moral sense of individuals who are oppressing you. Their moral compass is compromised.

By all means, if overthrowing systems of oppression can be done so non-violently, then I support that. But I can think of very few, if any, systems of structural violence that were stopped without some form of struggle.

Stonewall, for example, was the opposite of Good PR. But it did a shit ton for queer rights.

If you’d like to actually debate any of the points I’ve brought up, feel free. It’s kind of a bullshit that you can sit here and say it’s wrong without actually engaging in anything. I’m pretty sure a great many feminists agree with changing rhetoric in order to coddle others. I wouldn’t say they are wrong, just perhaps not experienced enough with some systems of oppression to understand that coating things in sugar just doesn’t work and that anyone who wants you to taper your arguments or feelings to coddle people who already have a hell of a lot of systemic power over you are not on your side.

Men are going to have to give up some of their structural power in order for equality to happen. They aren’t going to give that up just because you ask nicely. And doing so, even for the nicest guy, is going to be uncomfortable.

Go Go, it’s interesting you mention this because I just lost a longterm friendship with someone for essentially not being pissed off enough about every social injustice she thinks we as women face. Also, the fact that I am a SAHM seems to make some women feel like I am an archetypal “house wife.” To me, being a feminist is not about “nailing my colors to the mast” as the author puts it in text (in regards to men though) ( and no offense to the author intended,). was just an apt description) In other words, I should not be judged by feminists because I don’t choose to take up all their battle just by dint of being female. It’s about the fact of having a choice! Not being oppressed by men, but not being forced by feminist ideals either.

Also… final note (sorry! Well, at least I THINK it’s a final note…) – with the example of teh reading group – YES all men seemed to agree with the point made, but this is in a reading group – it’s fine for the intellectual type/high brow type of audience because they GET that it’s satire, they GET that it’s irony. However, ‘kill all men’ being chanted at protests for the WHOLE PUBLIC to hear, or online on the WORLDWIDE WEB… hardly intersectionality, is it? Only for the educated priveleged…

I kind of see what you mean, but you don’t know anything about the educational background of who was at this reading group. They could of been to one of the worst schools in the country, and educated themselves years later, with nothing more than a dictionary. Personally, that’s what I do. If I still don’t understand something, I’ll ask. If no one answers me, I’ll keep my mouth shut.

You can’t look at having knowledge as a privilege in itself.

I also, don’t think it’s difficult for people with only a basic grasp of English to understand what killallmen represents. All they have to do is imagine why someone might feel that way.

True, it was wrong of me to assume the education of the participants – sorry. What I meant was the fact that they were AT a reading group, providing literary critcism of such a text (which I haven’t read that) certainly strongly suggests that they’re the ‘intellectual’ type.

Ok, a persons education isn’t important though, everyone is capable of being intellectual. And having a group of like minded people to discuss things with is only ever a positive thing, It’s what we’re doing now.

To be honest, I am not shocked at the prospect of women killing men. We (men) have been doing so for ages, alongside oppressing women, trading them as pets, using their privates as a commodity for us to dispose, (bear in mind that being “rape” by your “husband” was inthinkable until very recently) and so on… The list of exemples of us trying to dominate women and to possess them as if they were our object is sadly very long.

Several reasons for that, men are weak in front of women, they cannot control their desire, their lust and needs for them. You are such pretty things that we are kind of the slaves to our desires for you. Instead of courting you and win your favors, we rather just make you our slaves instead, much easier. It’s been like that since the dawn of humanity, sadly, women can’t fight back physically (in most cases), that’s how we assert our (alleged) superiority. Yeah religion and patriarchal system is bullshit, I don’t identify myself to that. I just act the way I think is best for my Lady, but to my shame I must admit, that I often fall into the trap of sexist jokes or will comment on how great someone’s boobs are. Put 3 blokes together, a few pints, they have reverted to cavemen stage, sorry for not living up to prince charming cliché. We have to struggle against our very nature of being testosteroned individuals who likes brawling, eating, fucking and trying to rule the world for the most ambitous of us.

One thing you might notice is that I hate my gender and my very own nature. Men are aggressive, striving to become the successful alpha male and have plenty of breeding partners to ensure the long lasting of his genetical inheritance. To me, reason should prevail over instincts, hence my profound hatred for rapist and woman beater. In the 21st century, we are educated and civilised people (or are we not?). Then why such injustice are being carried on ? Women are evolving, getting emancipated, things are changing fast, and some men just can’t adapt. I fell sorry for them but they see their partner like their mum’s, doing the housework, dropping their careers etc. You can’t really blame them, they just need to be brought up to speed by some very understanding and patient woman. The next generation will have better luck (hopefully).

After losing the plot a lot in my comment, I must conclude by saying, yeah, Kill all men is way over the top, so it can only be ironical. The use of mysandry is such a laughable thing, it’s just clever than average blokes who try to fight back and find a way to limit women’s right exponential evolution. Sorry for not seeming a reliable ally sometimes, but I fly my own colors, I take care of my surroundings, I will not charge on a white destrier in shining armour to come defend women’s right at every corner of the globe. But i’ll help and advise the ones around me without being too insisting, some women are stong enough on their own ! (Believe me !)
The change is happening right now, slowly but surely, real equality between gender is every year getting closer (in the west), keep up the fight, men like me are actually in numbers, pretending with friends to be a sexist idiot without even meaning it, and treasuring their partner in the intimity of just a couple. There will be a time, we’ll give a helping hand, by raising our sons right and supporting your actions. But for now, swimming againts the stream is always perillous and ill-advised, we rather swim our own way, diagonally, neither mainstream nor openlly againts it.

There’s a bit of a tinge of “boys will be boys” here that I feel is kind of meh. I don’t think anyone says “kill all men” because we literally feel like there’s something inherent about being a man that results in structural oppression. I seriously do not believe that there is anything about anyone’s inert nature that causes this and even to blame structural violence on that just seems like a cop-out. Maybe it’s my last kernel of hope that is too stubborn to die, but it feels like we spend so much time lauding white men on their intellectual achievements while at the same time having no cognitive dissonance with talking about how cro magnon men can be. Something just doesn’t add up. I don’t believe it’s nature, and not just because that’s biological essentialism that doesn’t really pan out with my queer existence. But also because I think that if you have the desire and can build the structure to launch rockets into space you can damn well learn what sexism is and you can damn well stop treating someone as less than just because they’re different from you. At this point, white men have no more excuses. And if you’re such cavemen that you revert back to this state after just a few pints, maybe you ought to subsequently abdicate all of the leadership positions you dominate.

Kill all men? I know if my rapist stepfather hadn’t killed himself, that cowardly bastard, if I had had a chance I would have killed him. Without a second thought. The rage I feel when I think of him is without limit – what he did to me. So for me, kill all men is about killing THOSE men. Not hard to understand if you have been on the receiving end. It is possible to hold that feeling about abusers and separate non-abusers from this. But as usual the mob jump on the bandwagon and we are man-haters. Which we are – for THOSE men, as I said.

I have been on the receiving end – I was sexually abused by a male family member between the ages of four and 10/11 – and I’m afraid I do find it hard to understand. As it happens, I don’t feel any particular rage towards the perpetrator, though I recognise the irrationality of that. Rage against such men, and against the systems that enable them, is just and right. But, satirical or otherwise, the advocacy of killing them nauseates me – particularly the use of the small but important word ‘all’. Despite what that man did to me, there are a number of men in my life that I love deeply, and others I greatly admire. I find the thought of bracketing them in with him deeply distasteful, to say the least.

As someone else observed on this thread, it’s hardline comments like these that put people – including other women – off the idea of feminism. Granted, they should take the time to learn about what exactly it involves before arriving at such a conclusion, but I can see how it’s off-putting.

Anyway, thought-provoking article as usual. And Steffi, although I disagree with some if your points here: solidarity. And I’m so sorry that arsehole did what he did to you.

I’m a man (though I don’t identify as one, I don’t identify as any thing much). Yet, I’m happy to chant “kill all men” along side you.

It is not only obviously not meant to be taken seriously, but it also really riles up idiots and men (e.g. those who don’t get the joke because they don’t see patriarchy as a problem) who think that it is serious.

(Chanting it is is particularly amusing to do among “leftists” who take it seriously, not realising that the whole thing is a joke. Try it on some “leftist” web forums, and see how fast you get banned.)

It’s not just “kill all men”, it’s any such slogan or comment that seems to be against men.

“In the meantime do not be surprised if the rest of us rise up and turn against you. We can invoke nightmares of revenge worse than you can imagine. And the woman may rise up who will have her knife. And in the name of life she will take up her knife, and, castrating …”

Anon, it is very easy to call someone ‘an idiot’ when you yourself are educated and can recognise satire. It may not be that ‘idiots’ don’t understand that patriarchy is a problem, but rather they do not belong to the intellectual, educated, high-brow priveleged group, and thus don’t understand the concept of sature and irony. Please consider intersectionality in your argument.

That argument would hold weight if academic institutions weren’t also bastions of sexism. I’m afraid being intellectual or even having a capacity for understanding incredibly complex concepts does not automatically mean you understand sexism or any other form of structural oppression.

Similarly, not being university educated does not mean it’s impossible for you to understand the nuances behind anger resulting in oppression. In fact, it’s usually those individuals who haven’t been told constantly by oppressive pedagogy that they must state their argument in a specific way for anyone to take it seriously. At a certain point in your life, you stop giving a shit about the way establishments expect you to frame your arguments – especially since it doesn’t matter how well you frame them, they still aren’t listening to.

I’d ask you to consider intersectionality and stop assuming that people who are sexist are just uneducated or not privileged enough to receive a university education, because I can assure you. If a university education was all it took to understand structural oppression and fight against it, then all of the privileged white men who’ve gone through ivy leagues would be the biggest freedom fighters. But they aren’t. And that’s not a coincidence.

I don’t believe it takes a university education to recognise that a ridiculously over the top call to action, is, just that, ridiculously over the top. How about an-environmentalist who says that they want to cut down all the trees, and turn the forests into parking lots? Do you think that they seriously want that, or are they just using exaggeration for effect?

Moreover, it’s not difficult to look at who is chanting “kill all men” and look at what else they have written, or said, and see whether or not it is worthwhile thinking they are serious. In the case of our host, I suspect that it wouldn’t take long to find posts that demonstrate that she doesn’t actually want to kill all men. (I certainly don’t get the impression she does.) And, again, it doesn’t take a university education to look or listen to what else a person writes or says, and decide that maybe they are using a literary device (even if you don’t know what that is).

(Side note: I used the term “idiot” in my original comment. I did so deliberately. I realise that some people find the term offensive to those who actually have limited intelligence. I’m not convinced that it is. And besides, I do think that anyone who takes “kill all men” seriously, might be a bit thick.)

My gut reaction to this sort of thing used to be “but I’m opposed to all violence”, though I made exceptions for violence against direct oppressors. What offended me was the idea that people would be mean to inadvertently privileged people who did nothing active to oppress anyone. I’m against meanness, and so I was against women being mean to men as well as men being mean to women. This kind of universalism seems to be the most common objection – “no killing”, “you wouldn’t say the same about rape jokes” and so on and so on.

Trouble is, most of us brodudes who are against gendered violence often sort of aren’t. Rape is funny, Assange is innocent and she was already in the sex-game, he’s just like that #LAD, lol dead hookers, I would have spoken up but didn’t know how to say it, all that sort of thing where people are only opposed to violence against women in theory, and ignore it, brush it off or justify it in practice. There’s also a tendency to externalise this violence – jokes where the rapist is “like five guys” or still you but you doing an amusing comic persona so not really you actually, but either way, the Bad Men that really do this are wholly theoretical and the real perpetrators of violence against women are definitely never you or people you like.

As a man I feel threatened by the “all”. I feel like, hey, I’m all for chicks having rights and shit, I’m not like those other dudebros so why are they killing me as well? Unfair. Killing all men deprives us of the right to decide which of us are the good ones (me) and which of us (someone else) are the bad ones, like we can’t just slap Good Men Campaign on a sticker, like it’s somehow women’s prerogative to decide which ones to spare and we actually have to do something not to get killed. I dunno maybe that’s how it’s meant to work.

I know a fair few people (women and men, cis and trans) who find that the phrase “kill all men” makes them feel like shit about themselves, as well as excluded from feminist activity generally. I don’t condemn anyone who says it (that and “die cis scum”) because of the reasons you go into, but I’ve stopped doing it and so have a lot of the people I run with.

I’m not comfortable with “Kill all men.” That’s not to say there is anything about whether it is a useful/good slogan or not. I’m just not comfortable with it. That may be because of your point at the end about internailzing ideas about violence not being for women – god knows I’m not comfortable with any form of violence – or it may be something else. I’m going to need to do some thinking about this.

“Remember, we are born and socialised into a culture of violence. Is it any wonder we may entertain violent fantasies against our oppressors at times?”
There is not a culture of violence as you suggest, but there is a culture where some violence takes place. Get you facts right before you start spouting such propoganda and effectively stereotyping all men.
You say “Most men are not rapists or abusers, but many are complicit in perpetuating this violence by spreading rape apologist myths, by failing to stand against violence against women and girls, and by simply not nailing their colours to the mast and acting as allies”, do tell me what research you are basing this sweeping comment on.
I think I will start a grouyp called “Kill All Men Haters” and see how that goes down.
I suggest you grow up and join the 21 century………but then again what do I know as I am a man?

Maybe try going to the RAINN website yourself and doing your own bloody research. Women make up the majority of the victims of sexual violence. Now, granted, this is taken into account that men are discouraged from reporting sexual violence because that would make them weak (like women – yay misogyny!), but generally speaking men are also the main perpetrators of sexual violence – against men, against women, against trans* people, against everyone.

If I understand what you’re getting at correctly, it’s like how I treat rapists and murderers in the stories I write: although I don’t believe in the death penalty, I let out my rage and my disgust in the form of giving fictional characters their just desserts.
Is that anywhere on target?

I think it was BoldlyGo.Co who was clinging to the belief that men do not participate in and contribute to structural oppression because of their maleness- the hope being that there is nothing inherently “mal” about being male. This question can only be addressed by pressing “up-arrow” a time or two until we get to Human Nature. I suggest that the following is true: All humans share the same nature (men, women, etc.); That nature is good (not evil, corrupted, or mixed); Men are humans (needed to be said); and Therefore, men are good (all men are all good. So, why do good people do bad, hurtful things? People hurt others because they themselves have been hurt. The only way out is to heal the hurt. This calls for love, not genocide. The only way to make men into effective allies is to be effective allies for them.

Were did I say that men do not participate in or contribute to structural oppression? That’s not what I said. Read again.

I do not believe all people share any nature and I do not believe that people need to continuously submit themselves to abuse if they no longer wish this. Sometimes anger and rage are part of healing. Stifling the expression of that anger solves nothing.

Women have been “effective allies” for men for generations. They’ve cooked your food. Taken care of your children. Sewn your clothes. They work in your sweatshops. They sweep your floors. They do your dishes. And in return you have put them in chastity belts. You have made marital rape legal. You have raped and abused them in war. You have forcibly sterilised them if they are women of colour or you have removed options for them to be sterilised by choice. You have put them in Scolds Bridles, burnt them as witches, and made them into second class citizens. You murder, abuse, and rape them daily. Women make up half the population*, work 2/3rds of the world’s working hours, but only own 10% of the world’s income and 1% of the world’s property. But yet, that’s not enough, is it? That’s not enough for you to end the system oppression against trans women of colour. That’s not enough for women to fight in military zones without being at more risk of being raped by their fellow soldiers than killed by an enemy combatant. That’s not enough to stop the fact that the largest risk to a pregnant woman’s life is not car accident or disease, but her cis male partner. No. You all want more, don’t you. You want us to smile, honey. Because god forbid we upset you. God forbid we make you uncomfortable for a change. Women must stifle their anger because it offends your delicate sensibilities and messies up your day.

If that’s not being an “effective ally”, than please enlighten as to what the fuck you expect.

*Caveat obviously that many of these stats leave out trans* and intersex people or include them in the wrong ways, but I still think it’s worth mentioning because the same structures of oppression that wish trans and intersex people dead or surgically altered are the same ones that want women subjugated.

GoBoldly.Co You wrote: “… I don’t think anyone says “kill all men” because we literally feel like there’s something inherent about being a man that results in structural oppression. I seriously do not believe that there is anything about anyone’s inert nature that causes this and even to blame structural violence on that just seems like a cop-out.. Maybe it’s my last kernel of hope that is too stubborn to die… I don’t believe it’s nature, and not just because that’s biological essentialism that doesn’t really pan out with my queer existence. But also because I think that if you have the desire and can build the structure to launch rockets into space you can damn well learn what sexism is and you can damn well stop treating someone as less than just because they’re different from you.”

I read it just fine the first time through. I am sure you can forgive me for understanding what you meant and agreeing with it. All the… material you responded with did not address my point. But let me be clear: the examples of the oppression of women you cite are not- NOT- examples of how women have been effective allies for men in their (men’s) own liberation. One can’t claim that men are hurt by sexism, e.g., and then point to male privilege and say how great they’ve got it. Men are imprisoned and hurt by structural oppression; if you don’t believe it, you might want to take over the job. Your response is an excellent example of the point I was making.

Fascinating article. I’ll agree with those that have objected to the phrase as an ineffective slogan or statement of anger. There are issues with this phrase that don’t stem from an internalized idea that violence is not the domain of women. There are greater issues – the idea that engaging in public violent fantasies will change anything, the idea that screaming controversial statements that are not intended to be true can make a difference. True change is wrought by bringing others around to one’s own point of view, by convincing, not compelling them. Any change that results from fear or acceptance of violence is only a superficial change at best.

I’m not sure I really understand what you’re trying to say here. In what way is this “kill all men” statement good exactly? It sounds like it’s just violence begetting more violence. The problem with these statements is that they eventually become realized in actual action. You might not be murdering all men, but eventually some crackpot will take it too far from its symbolic meaning and take words to action.

Additionally, rather than educating and encouraging men to stand up for women’s rights, it puts a wall between the sexes. Women can’t fix misogyny alone, any more than men can fix misandry on their own. We need to work together to nurture respect and dialogue, not throw out divisive banter that causes additional issues. If some dude is already leaning towards being a misogynistic idiot, then this statement might be the tipping point that makes him say, “Yep. I knew it. We have to keep ’em in line.”

If all men are not deserving of death, someone forgot to tell all other men this, because they certainly seem ready to kill one another at any provocation, with the greatest cheerfulness, all over the globe. The SCUM Manifesto notwithstanding, the vast majority of men are not killed by hormonally crazed feminists, but by other men.

Frankly, women sitting around saying “kill all men … or not!” is an academic exercise, because the whole world knows they’re not going to do it. It’s when MEN sit around and talk about death and killing that bombs start to go off at city sporting events and planes crash into buildings. Any little whiner who pisses and moans about the SCUM Manifesto needs to be reminded of this. Women are NOT your threat, buddy, not even the radical feminist ballbusters.

This was a well written and not at all (I feel) inflammatory article. I have three daughters who I try very hard to protect from misogyny, though sometimes it seems a losing battle. I just let them know that they are worth more than what the world tells them, and encourage them to demand respect from others, regardless of who they are — and this is important — because I find that as disrespectful and demeaning as men can be to women, the worst enemy that women have is other women, who, on a personal level, bully them and form cliques based on clothing or social status, or corporate women who perpetuate the fashion magazine standards of beauty and self-worth, or pop stars who devalue their talent in favour of the power of their sex appeal — because, like Ani Difranco said:
“don’t tell me what they did to you
as though you had no choice
tell me, isn’t that your picture?
isn’t that your voice?”
I think it’s right to be angry at a group of people that have oppressed you, and it’s fair to say “Kill All Men”, remembering that you are railing against patriarchal oppression — just don’t forget that the goal is harmony, and if the olive branch is held out, it would be counterproductive to slap the hand that holds it simply because that hand is male. That makes you no different than the man who’s been burned by love adopting the “all women are bitches” attitude. So give a guy a chance — let him actually fail you before you just assume that he’s going to.
Thanks for listening. I enjoyed your article very much.

Do you not get that a lot of the people who use this as an exercise in frustration HAVE already been hurt and abused by men? And are doing this to vent our anger?

See, it’s not really the same thing as a man deciding that all women are bitches. Because a great many a male do actually think that women are like The Borg. Women are constantly objectified and are turned into objects and there’s been research that demonstrates that this is a phenomenon that happens to women – not to men. And the result is that women are treated as objects to men. The situations are not contextually similar because the reason that men often say women are bitches because they can’t get laid say that because they feel entitled to sex with women. Whereas, women who yell “kill all men” in frustration… well, they don’t really actually feel entitled to anything, except the right to express the feelings of frustration and rage over systemic oppression and the abuse they may have personally experienced.

You assume that women won’t give men a chance and will start rejecting all of them as if they’re the same. But women probably aren’t going to do that, because most of our bosses are men. Most of our landlords are men. All of the people who represent us in government are usually men. Men pretty much dominate all institutions of power we rely on for survival. We have a lot to risk by rejecting all men as one cohesive unit. Men don’t have that same risk when they decide all women are bitches. That’s why “nice guys” who say that kind of shit are pretty much a dime a dozen, whereas very few women are actually shouting “kill all men”.

Although this was well written, I refuse to be dragged into the group known as “feminists.” I’m not a feminist; I’m egalitarian and I have no oppressors. Perhaps instead of fantasizing about killing one of the two genders we need to survive, we could go to countries where girls aren’t given education and contribute to the solution of that problem.

I really can’t see the justification for use of such a term, even as a shock factor or conversation starter. The rest of your post is interesting and thought provoking. I must say, there is a vibe and sense here ( ‘many are complicit’ ) that men in general should accept a collective responsibility. That generalization goes too far. I’d prefer to be judged on my actions and those that I influence, rather than being put in a generalized collective.

I think the problem with the idea of “kill all men” is the value system it suggests: that if you don’t like a group people for whatever reason–they have wronged you or harmed or are just ugly and smell bad–it’s okay to kill them. And it’s this belief that it is acceptable to decide for ourselves, individually, who can live and who must die, who must be protected and who can be harmed that is at the root of many of our problems as a species–not the particular people being violent or being victims of violence, but the idea that violence against those you disapprove of is acceptable. It can’t be. Not if we ever want to live in a world in which groups of people aren’t targeted for violence. It’s precisely the same value system that makes it acceptable to target women for violence, or particular racial or cultural groups. And I think it’s this that needs to change–not just which groups are targeted, but the idea that it’s okay to target any group.

I should add that I do not see violence as the least bit gendered. I have seen violent women in action throughout my life. The pattern I do see is that people direct violence at those they perceive to have less power, either because they are physically smaller or have less economic or political clout. Consequently, women usually direct violence at children or other women. Or, they act through men to direct violence at their more powerful targets.

Changing who is an acceptable target will not eliminate the fact of their being acceptable targets. We are merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic if that’s all we strive to do.

it’s been a while since i can repeat a comment (and belief) i’ve had for quite some time. i rankle when “religious” types give thanks and allelujahs to HIM and speak of the DEITY in an exclusively masculine sense.

they think they know something of the beyond, and the powers that be, but … those who DO NOT ascribe masculine/patriarchal attributes to THAT (the unknown, the nagual, the infinite), well, i can talk with them.

i think it is after the patriarchially-inclined can consider that perhaps their viewpoint is limiting, then we can go a step further …

Would you prefer, “Oh geese, sir. Could you please stop raping, beating, and abusing women? Golly gash darn pretty please with sugar on top if you’re not too busy teeing off”? Would that be preferable?

Exceptionally written. It’s true, our societal norms include stereotypical fantasies but at the conclusion of a day, they’re just stereotypical fantasies. I agree with your words. A post worth the time! Hats off!

So why isn’t it “Kill men that rape and abuse”? “Kill all men” doesn’t make sense, no matter how it is justified.

I’m a complicit member of abuse because I’m busy worrying about my own problems and not responsible for the lives of every woman in this society?

I’d normally just pass on, but people justifying their personal hate into a worthy cause and a crusade against ‘the system’, just gives me something to say.

You’re a part of society. If I’m complicit, then so are you.

Rosa Parks put her life on the line for her civil rights. Boudicca went to war against the almighty Roman empire. These women understood, at the core of the problem, there is no gender, there is no system.

Fighting for something and crying about something are two different things. Sorry if I sound critical, but I think you deserve it.

What a wonderful and engaging write. Congratulations on being Freshly Pressed! You are certainly deserving of the honor, and we, the readers, are all the richer for being introduced to you! I look forward to reading more of your blog. Again..wonderful and congrats! ~Dennis

I don’t think that the the reason why the phrase ‘kill all men’ is shocking is because violence is stereotypically within the man’s domain. I think it is shocking because, regardless of intention, it reaffirms all the negative, ‘female-supremacy’ connotations that put people off feminism in the first place. Yes, women are still oppressed so killing all men is not actually going to happen. But why would anyone support a movement which empowers people with these views? By alienating the public with this miessage, equality simply becomes less achievable. I am a passionate feminist, and I too feel like I need to vent my rage every time I hear a new example of the oppression of women, but I really don’t understand how this phrase helps to express these feelings. I’m not looking for an argument here, just interested in further explanation!

Well, I must admit, when I saw the title ‘kill all men,’ I took a doubletake. I may disagree with stavvers on some points, but overall, I’m glad I’ve come across her blogs (I’ve read some of them, not been disappointed), and it’s got us all talking 🙂

The title engaged me immediately. Great post! Women are ridiculed in ways men are not and treated as second class citizens in this country. Violence is accepted and perpetuated in pop-culture and every day life. Women have every right to be angry. I recently wrote about this in regards to pop-culture. Please feel free to check it out.

I definitely understand where you’re coming from when you speak of the double-standards of violence, but phrases like “kill all men” (no matter the intent) don’t do much to help alleviate gender inequalities.

But perhaps I am much too soft spoken. Who knows?

Also congrats on the Freshly Pressed, it is definitely getting people thinking.

Well I don’t want to kill Men..!!
But a quote that I have read many-a-times, can be brought into practice….
“All men are from Mars, Women are from Venus”
Lets just send them back to Mars.. So that Women can live a life, thats not so scary…every hour…every minute..every second..!! ^-^ 🙂

The writing quality is without question amazing.
I’m not in favor of collective blame, though I do get the point of the article. Oppression in this world is indeed real, while all men do not oppress or rape or harm all women. I’m personally in favor of placing blame on those directly responsible. It actually let’s someone off the hook when blame is on a collective group. Men are not evil, women are not oppressed. Simply, some individuals are evil and some individuals are oppressed.
Some gender distinctions and roles are not negative yet positive. I’m grateful that here in my secluded part of the world gentlemen often assist me in carrying items much too heavy for my small frame, though I hope it is my size and strength not solely my gender that lead to such helping hands.
Most will disagree with me on this I’m certain but equality is not actually a good thing for anyone. Equality suggests that everyone is in fact the same, without individuality. Everyone should not be treated equal, but instead fairly. To illustrate what I mean: when I was a little younger I found myself in a comparative religions class. In this class we often wrote long essays. Now, do not misunderstand, I was held accountable for all assignments and content of them. However, I was given a little lenience in regard to my grammar. Since the point of the class was my understanding of the subject and not command of the English written language this was fair but not equal. The rest of the class was held to a higher standard for grammar. How is this fair? Simply put English is my third language. Were we all treated equal? No, was it fair, by the vote of all class members, yes.
That is a small and possiblly lame example.
My point is those responsible for oppression, rape, harm and evil should be held accountable… So, for me the issue sets with the word “all” and classification of gender. If as a girl I want to be fairly treated with the boys, I also must stop segregating by gender. Thus, a better statement though I do not condone any violence is “Kill all Oppressors” though not as catchy and may not make the same point.
Just the opinion of a girl who has a first stand understanding of the harm, regardless of gender that bad people can inflict on a young, semi-defenseless girl.

I so agree with you on this. When the MRAs and other rape apologist species accuse all feminists of being misandryists, I have only thought in my mind, considering the amount of bull-shit that women have to put up with everyday at the hands of men, would it really be a surprise if they were misandryists?

“Saying ‘kill all men’ and violence against women and girls are completely different. There is no serious threat of the women rising up and actually killing all men, all the while the hum of background noise of another women raped, murdered or beaten by a man.”

I completely agree with this statement 100%. I think feminists (all of genders and sexes) should be mad. I even think that theoretically there are instances in which violence (or a threat of violence) could be the appropriate response to oppression.

HOWEVER, while I sympathize (as a cis male I could never fully understand the extent of or truly empathize with the plight of women) and fully support the freedom of women to express their anger in this way, I think that “kill all men” is counterproductive and damaging to the feminist movement. Not because it’s a serious threat of violence (it isn’t), but because it undermines the true goals of feminism (equality) and misrepresents the movement.

Feminism has a serious branding problem. 82% of Americans believe that “men and women should be social, political, and economic equals,” but only 20% of Americans consider themselves a feminist (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html). I believe that “kill all men” contributes to the erroneous belief that feminism is the “battle of the sexes” and serves to further this divide.

Nice use of a metaphor to get your point across. It’s funny how many people are unfamiliar with that particular story-telling device.

I do think that society in general can learn a lot from feminists. We should be taking what we learned in the fight for women’s right to vote, and apply it to the struggle to update our political institutions into digital democracies. Here’s something I wrote on that subject:

Reblogged this on This Mongrel Land and commented:
reblogging this because the right of non-male people to express shit like this needs to be defended. Unlike with “ACAB” “Kill Whitey” and “Die Cis Scum” I’ve seen a surprising amount of whining/blacklash against “Kill all men” specifically from white radical leftist and anarchist men. The premier argument is “that’s fucked up because some men are people of color.”

Newsflash: some cis people are people of color, some cis people are women, some cis people are disabled. All of these classes of people are people who are oppressed, discriminated against and frequently have violence perpetrated against them. But no one ever pointed to “Die Cis Scum” and said “your hyperbolic expression of rage and a desire for violent self-liberation from oppression is fucked up because intersectionality.”

If you were to take it that far, I would say “Kill All Humans” might be more accurate. Just kidding though, I appreciate the satire. Patriarchy is patriarchy. We’re creating a new culture where the norm is to live by one’s self and never want marriage. (this is a generalization) Women don’t want to feel oppressed, and neither do men.

Which is very little. And no they don’t. Or else you’d have women running around killing people for fun. Last time I checked, it was a man doing that. The time before a man as well. And the time before a man again. Hmm…

Whenever a guy kills/rapes/molests someone you have people breaking their necks to announce that “women can be bad too”. Without a fail. Evidence for that is never given. Men just believe that if they repeat it often enough people will believe it.
Can you name the female equivalent of Hitler or Stalin? I’m waiting. Oh, wait let me guess it’s the hot girls who refuses dating a basement-dweller for his personality, right?

A guy here killed his baby “by accident” when he tried to cure his throwing up by pressing on his belly really really hard. It died of internal injuries and people were blaming the mother who had left for an hour to go grocery shopping and made the mistake of leaving the kids with the 30+ year old father. Apparently you can’t leave a man with a baby without him killing it in a matter of minutes.

The standards for men are set so low that even behaving like a normal adult is praised into high heavens. Women do it all day everyday and no one dies.

Again where are the violent women? Where are they? If they were any the fact that they’re women would be hidden not emphasized times ten. Like they do with men who become the passive one in the headlines even when they shoot up a school.

If anyone tells me “women are bad too” I’m going to smash his face in and go you’re totally right but not all women are bad. And then set him on fire.

Reblogged this on Shmucks Read Free and commented:
apparently threatening people with violence or claiming you are going to inflict it upon them is “just provocative language”, not a threat.

if someone said to me “die cis scum” or whatever i’d think i was in imminent danger and fight back. as someone who has experienced another try to strangle me, it isn’t a rhetorical device, but something immediately accessible. i hope people face the consequences of their ignorant hyperbolic threats. it is terrorism.

note the distinction “cis people should die” vs “die cis scum”. the qualifier ‘should’ mitigates the threat, whereas the alternative is an immediate threat and act of verbal violence literally equivalent to “i’m going to enjoy killing you”. to litterally fight back out of self defense cause you think an angry mod is going to murder/lynch you is hardly unreasonable. but i bet that too would be patriarchy.

Feminists get more angry about me saying “kill all men” than they do about my husband almost beating me to death. Until that changes, I’ll continue to say it every day, every chance I get. The more you all cry and stomp your feet over it, the happier I am.

But haven’t you learned that women must always be nice and smile and be patient with the 35 year old “boys will be boys” men while they are allowed to say and do the most inhumane things because they have this thing called “never taking responsibility for anything” and get away with it. It’s always a “joke” or an ” it wasn’t me” that they can throw in in hindsight. Never their fault. Nope. How dare we demand not to be disrespected. If we don’t let ourselves be manipulated and used how do those men ever get to feel an ounce of power. I love it when they kill each other and beat up each other. Leave us human beings (women) the fuck alone while you go suck the lives out of each other, you disgusting, vile pieces of shit.

I’ve had issues with men for years. It seems like no matter how I act–nice, kind, flirty, coy, friendly, outgoing, icy, bitchy, apathetic–NOTHING works. They still either treat me like shit or they are indifferent to me. I can’t say how many times I’ve said hello to a guy while walking my dog, and have him just stare back at me. Yes, he could be deaf, but there’s nothing–no smile, no acknowledgement.

And I’ve had people say, “why don’t you try women?” Nope, not interested. I’m not a lesbian. I get along better with women, true, but I’m not attracted to them. Is it so much to ask for a little respect?

I wish I weren’t so afraid to stand up for myself, but with everyone toting guns these days, I’m afraid the one time I blow up and tell some motherfucker off, that’s when I’ll get shot.

Some teenage boy nearly sideswiped me at the grocery store last night. His mother demanded he apologize to me. He said, “sorry ma-am.” I spit back, “that’s okay, I’m used to men running me over.” I should have said, “fuck you, you useless piece of shit. I hope the next woman you almost sideswipe beats the shit out of you.”